Posted
by
samzenpus
on Monday February 11, 2013 @09:38AM
from the strange-bedfellows dept.

First time accepted submitter thoughtfulbloke writes "Ron Paul has gone to the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization to seize control of the RonPaul.com domain from the fans that built it up, rather than purchase it. From the article: 'The proprietors of RonPaul.com say they reached out to the retired politicain and offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it: '"

There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it

That's the funny thing about Capitalism... wait for it... the market decides what the price should be. And right now, they have a very unique piece of property that will cost whatever they want to sell it for because they... wait for it... own it! But, you know, let's clamor and argue for the defunding and dissolution of the UN [thepoliticalguide.com] right up until it benefits us personally. This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties – all without paying ”just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Congress must work to get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours, right Senator Paul?

Because that's not what she believed, nor what the American right-wing Objectivists believe. It's a nice way of stating a subset of the actual belief, which is "screw everyone else, I got mine, and programs like Social Security and Medicare shouldn't exist at all".

If you don't see the hypocrisy, then you are essentially a blind religious fanatic for this brand of extremist Libertarian thought.

You know, if the government made me pay for a benefit, then I'm damn well going to use it. That doesn't mean that I think it should exist, but while it does and they are taking my money, I don't see what the issue is. Particularly since that benefit makes me pay them in lieu of what I might put aside for my own retirement.

So that's fine, use it. And keep complaining about said benefits existence, it's a valid argument. But by taking those benefits, you can no longer argue that those who do take advantage of said benefits are a drain on our society without being a drain yourself.

I found a source on the internet quoting the worth of Ayn Rand's estate at ~$500,000 at the time of her death. It's unclear how much of that was tied up in property, how much of it was the value of her writings, and how much of it was liquid. What is clear is that her declining health and battle with cancer could have had a significant impact on her wealth.

So, Ayn Rand spent most of her life smoking, and when she was diagnosed with Cancer, she turned to Medicare to protect her estate.

Do you know what Ayn would have called someone who made devastating life decisions and then turned to the government for salvation?

If I beat you up for your lunch money, and then offered to give it back to you, would you go without lunch despite the fact that you are of the belief that you shouldn't have your lunch money taken away in the first place? Hardly.

Of all the things to beat up Ayn Rand about, it seems like people like to flock to the weakest criticism just so they can use the word "hypocrisy". For that matter, hypocrisy isn't even a logical fallacy. You can be a complete hypocrite and still be correct with your assertion, it is just problematic to use yourself as an exemplar of your ideas in action if you are. If a killer preaches to you about the value of life, you'd probably think he was a hypocrite, but I doubt that you would then think that he's wrong about his assertion.

Ayn Rand could be a poor Objectivist, which is debatable, but that doesn't mean Objectivism is wrong.

there are fallacies apart from deductive logical fallacies. if someone offers a prescriptive moral system, it seems reasonable to evaluate it by whether its adherents can follow the system consistently. for example, let's consider the prescription of catholic priests not marrying. sure, it makes sense; no wife means closer to god (if `god' is uncomfortable to you, replace it with `studies' or `devotion'). great, except now they sodomize little boys. there's no logical fallacy there, but it does suggest that

It is not a contradiction to believe something, but have a great deal of difficulty in achieving it personally. I can believe that the best way to attain a healthy weight is to eat well and exercise regularly, but I may well remain overweight because I have difficulty overcoming my urges to eat unhealthy amounts of unhealthy food.

I agree, such a person is not going to make a good role model, and one could actually ask whether that goal is even possible if even the "prophet" of that idea can't do it, but in

This article makes the point why this is hypocritical:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

Ayn took the money after criticizing the programs and making the implication that people who took the money were weak. Self interest wasn't her only tenet.

Also, the other implication is that she took the money under a different name to avoid looking hypocritical. That may also be self interest but it also points to a failure to live up to her openly espoused philosophies. It would be interesting to find out how much money she had amassed during her lifetime and whether she had the option to *not* take the money and still be well off. I think that would be particularly hypocritical but I'm unsure of how she did financially.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . ..

Rand wrote in "The Virtue of Selfishness".....that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Also....Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968....

There's an even greater irony here in that she needed health care benefits >> Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.

To be fair, anyone with a functioning brain should be able to distinguish between them quite easily. Unless of course you're ideologically inclined to equate them because you feel it vindicates your a-priori position.

You take money from people and tell them they'll get more back later.In order to pay those people back, you use money you've taken from other people, using the same promises.

And that's it! That's your Ponzi scheme. Take money, skim some off the top, just make sure you keep getting more money from either old customers or new money from new ones so that you stay solvent....in other words, Social Security.

No one "fears" these hallucinations and masturbatory fantasies you call "ideas". We recognize them as the laughable fictions of the spoiled, the immature, and those with little experience with human interaction. Sometimes when you scream and cry to be taken seriously we find it upsetting and annoying and want to apply some constructive corporal punishment.

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours

I think this is unintentionally very funny because the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property. Now if he was trying to steal "campaignforliberty.com" that would be an interesting argument assuming they weren't just domain squatters who registered well after the PR campaign started.

If there is a lesson, don't start up a 3rd party site with a name consisting of nothing but the 1st party name. Even "unofficialsupportforronpaul.com" would have been more morally justifiable than just taking the dude's name and slapping a dotcom on the end.

Back in the 90s the company owning the rights to the Archie comics went after "Veronica.org". A guy setup the site because he had a toddler named Veronica and he posted a couple pictures. It finally fell out in the guy's favor...http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-220240.html [cnet.com]

If being named the same as a site gave you rights, could you imagine the dust-up for johnsmith.com?

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours

I think this is unintentionally very funny because the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property. Now if he was trying to steal "campaignforliberty.com" that would be an interesting argument assuming they weren't just domain squatters who registered well after the PR campaign started.

If there is a lesson, don't start up a 3rd party site with a name consisting of nothing but the 1st party name. Even "unofficialsupportforronpaul.com" would have been more morally justifiable than just taking the dude's name and slapping a dotcom on the end.

So you're saying there's only one person named Ron Paul in the entire world?

How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).

(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)

How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).

(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)

You would be absolutely 100% correct, IF the domain ronpaul.com was being used for some other purpose. Maybe there's a plumber named Ron Paul who wants to put up a website. Or an accountant. Or a guy named Ron Paul wants to sell auto parts on the Internet. Those are all legitimate.

But that's not the case here. The domain is being used exclusively for activities relating to Ron Paul the congressman from Texas. This is exactly the definition of cybersquatting.

No, there's actually a documented history of names being used for other purposes. This kind of thing has been going on for over a decade. FordReallySucks.com is all about the quest of big companies to squelch critical sites that use their name.

Not that I'm arguing with the principle of what they're saying, but when your argument says:"And most people who remain in their right mind would have no problem doing a "whois" on the Domain Name..."don't really understand who 'most people' really are. Or why Ford (or anyone) might at least have a problem with what they did.

is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.

Um, yes, that is the defination of cybersquatting, according to the document that you linked to.

is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.

Um, yes, that is the defination of cybersquatting, according to the document that you linked to.

No - you're failing to parse the definition of terms such as bad faith and trademark.

Exactly, his claim is legit, not because the domain is his name. It's legit because they are implicitly implying that they represent him. He has the right to have control over his own voice on the internet.

From liked article.is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.

I do not see bad faith here. They created the site to help Ron Paul get elected. (Fail 1)They have a huge mailing list of people interested in hearing from Ron Paul. This list has value the asking price is probably not far from fair. (Fail 2)

Ron Paul should stop being a bitch and work a deal with these people.Ron Paul runs to have something that people created to benefit him, that has inherent value that came from their work to be taken from them by an international organization that he believes is bad and should go away.Fuck Ron Paul.

It's what actually happened. The first owner's name was Ron Paul...the current owners bought it from him...Let me tell you the whole story about RonPaul.com...The current owners bought it on Ebay back in 2008 from Ron Paul...they didn't cybersquat and initially register the domain themselves...I remember going to the Ebay auction back in 2008 and seeing RonPaul.com go for over 25K...a friend of mine told me this-------"If Ron Paul could hire competent people, he would

But Microsoft isn't pretending to be a libertarian. This isn't about whether legislation or the power of the UN can get him the domain name without paying for it. It's whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite or not.

And yes, he is being a hypocrite. He want's a governmental body to take someone else's property off them rather than buy it in a free market.

Good question, and I don't know what the best answer is. But a software developer named Mike Rowe was not allowed to have the domain mikerowesoft.com because microsoft thought it was too close to their name.

No, first because the issue wasn't bare "names" but Microsoft asserting its right to its trademark within the commercial domain (computer software) to which that trademark applies. Trademarks are names, but not all names are trademarks.

Bad argument in the Mikerowsoft case as they settled and it did not go to court. In the end Mike Rowe won, it was Microsoft that walked away with the black eye. They origianlly offered him $10, in the end he got Microsoft to pay all of the expenses that Rowe had incurred including setting up a new site at and redirecting traffic to MikeRoweforums.com. Additionally Microsoft provided Rowe with a subscription to the Microsoft Developer Network, an all expenses paid trip for him and his family to the Microsoft Research Tech Fest at their headquarters in Redmond, Washington, training for Microsoft certification and an Xbox with a selection of games.

Just because the function of ridding domains of squatters is at the UN does not mean the rest of the UN's operations or conduct is legit.

Look at the LA cop thing in California in which the have shot up 3 separate scenes and wounded several completely innocent people trying to execute a criminal instead of arresting him and going to court for justice. I can talk about how much of a thug the cops are, how they are completely incompetent scared little bitches ignoring the constitutional right of due process hell bent on inflicting personal revenge on the ex cop who killed one of their own and claims to have information proving they were in the wrong for his termination and acted abhorrently in several criminal cases, but I would still call them to report my home was burglarized. That wouldn't be some giant conflict of interest or reversal of anything else I stood for..

Don't worry, Ron Paul is just demonstrate that he's a true Republican. Sure, he takes principled stands..until money is involved and he can get/save money. Of course, such was clear when your idea to make a smaller government is to join that government and do nothing effective for decades to actually shrink government. Maybe joining was some sort of a protest? Well, RMS protests against proprietary software and as much as people give him slack, they still see how it tries very hard to live by his code.

Ron Paul's a populist politician. He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats, by ignoring the measurable good of government programs and focusing only on how much they cost. He's made the Federal Reserve a scapegoat for everything wrong with the economy, and thanks to the magic of psychology-driven Austrian economics, he can just forget about the economic problems before the Fed existed, because they were just so long ago.

This is yet another chapter in the tale of Ron Paul's subtle hypocrisy. He'll complain about globalization and fight against having any global authorities interfering in private citizens' lives, yet he has no problem running to a global authority to interfere in other people's lives on his behalf.

He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats

I wish this where true. He spent the bulk of the time during the debates and afterwards complaining the problem was Republicans. I agree with you about being glad he is retiring. I wish they would all "retire" after 2 or 3 terms.

Honestly, I think it is somewhat worse, because anger is stronger (politically) than affection.

By focusing on cost alone, the whole system including its history is cast as bad because of its immediate past. The people clamor immediately to throw out the old system. After the public outrage, any attempt to accurately discuss benefits is tainted by the accusations of cronyism and corruption.

By focusing on the system's measurable good, we can determine first whether the system is pushing toward a desirable end

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours, right Senator Paul?

I personally feel that he'd be much better off just ignoring the domain and creating his own website (possibly with the domain, http://domains-do-not-really-matter-anymore.com/ [domains-do...nymore.com] but I do understand where he is coming from a little bit. People will assume that whatever is being published at www.ronpaul.com will be things that Ron Paul agrees with. Think of it as a giant newletter with Ron Paul's logo on it. Of course, he could just ignore it and let them publish whatever they feel like, but if he does that a

This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.

Well you haven't been paying attention.

As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.

A lot of 'pro-capitalism' individuals may squeal about how the government and it's influence are bad, and how great free market is, but they also are the very first to turn a blind eye if they can make a profit from it. Their goal isn't an effective economy, a well run and organized civilization, providing goods for the market, etc. Their goals are to have the larges proportion of wealth possible, regardless who/what else it may hurt.

I have been a Paul support and I disagree. I would say unless what they are putting on the site is untrue, in which case its libel and is why we have civil courts, there is no reason they should have to turn over the name or be expected to do so without compensation. Compensation should be the price they set as its currently their property.

You can't call them squatters either they are actually using the domain, have real current content there, and its even related to the subject the name would lead you to expect. What they are doing is more or less the antithesis of domain squatting.

Really I am disappointed in Paul over this one in a big way. I don't see anything wrong with what the people on the site are doing. Actually Paul should be grateful because they are basically promoting him.

This isn't domain squatting. They've been actively using the site for multiple elections expressly to promote Ron Paul. These are *his* ardent supporters who did this on their own dime and if he wants to control the benefits of that...guess what, pay up. They aren't asking for millions, just a paltry 250K. Spread over 4 years over multiple people. It's hardly trying to 'cash in' on something.

Ron Paul is both hypocritical here and right on the money. Which is that his libertarian views are that he's allowed to do whatever he wants...including suing people or running to governmental agencies for help.

Libertarianism itself is hypocritical...and it's downright fun to watch the ardent supporters get a lesson in that...

People who want small government don't understand that 'government' is how we resolve disputes between independent parties. Unless they're going to magically make the human race stop having 'disputes', government will always be around and be relatively large (assuming the populations that support them are likewise large).

Desiring a more efficient/streamlined government would be reasonable, but mostly they aren't asking for that from what I've seen, both Libertarians and Republicans/Conservatives.

The website clearly states that it is a "fansite" and not affiliated with Ron Paul. While they could do more to distance their site from Ron Paul, that is not what this dispute is about.

On top of that, they are basically trying to extort money out of the man. Their motives are clearly to squat on the domain until they get a fat wad of cash.

They have raised millions of dollars for Ron Paul and built him a supporter list of 170,000 people. He did not refuse the money when running his multiple campaigns despite knowing its origins. Did Ron Paul ask the website to cease its operations at any time in the last 5 years? Has Ron Paul offered to pay the costs to build and run the website and mailing list during that time? It sounds to me like Ron Paul knowingly benefitted from the site for a substantial period of time. I would characterize that as, at the very least, implicit consent.

Why is this modded down?This is the absolute truth. He likes the free market until it impacts him. If he does not like the price he is free to not buy this product, but instead he wants some outside actor to force this person to give up their property.

Its modded down because its a broad generalization that cant possibly be made honestly unless he has actually see this behavior from a statistically significant number of libertarians. Its similar to BS like "All republicans are racist" (they arent), or "all Democrats are communist" (they arent), and should be modded down as such.

What I like is that they are fighting over something that is purely a creation of ICANN: there is nothing magic about DNS that makes domain names globally authoritative(and, unlike with fiat currency, it isn't even legally troublesome to make your own, if you can get anybody to accept them), ICANN just runs the nameservers that people give a damn about.

If they wanted to take this out to the marketplace and settle it like men, they could just each provide an IP and let their respective supporters modify their hosts files or local DNS records according to their preferences, as consumers, about which ronpaul.com offered a superior ronpaul.com product and/or service.

It's like watching two gold-bugs fighting over a $100 'federal reserve note'...

It would be foolish to judge the truths a man believes in by the apparent weakness or hypocrisy of that man.

If a man claimed monogamy in marriage was good for society, but due to his own moral failure, had multiple partners, would we then conclude that adultery was best for all men?

It would be best that we use our minds and experience to find truth and not look for the man who looks the best to decide what truth is best for us. Otherwise, we will just be sheep for the media to direct.

I actually liked Ron Paul right up to the point of reading this. Anyone who preaches smaller government, less control, more personal freedom, and a truly free economy and does this...Well that person is a hypocritical 2 faced..politician.

Name it. I find that is the most common thing said about Ron Paul. That he has crazy ideas, yet most people can' t actually name one of them. It's not saying much, but he seems to be the most sane of the republican presidential candidates, by far..

I'll name one. Switching to the gold standard. It could have worked when he first got into congress, now there is way too much money to really make that work. It's also a bad idea, because gold is actually useful in e

his official stance was competing currencies so you can park your purchasing power in any currency, even privately issued, and not have a government imposed penalty on that. Rationale is that monopoly breeds exploitation. You think the Fed prints too much and the inflation is massaged down? Give a vote of no confidence and opt out of dollar. It's a free market principle extended to include money as well.Obviously gold backed currency would be an obvious choice for many, given the long successful history of

The main problem with the gold standard idea is that all the gold ever mined is not valuable enough to pay for one year's worth of world production. If you would force the world (or even the U.S.) to switch back to the gold standard, you just wouldn't have enough gold at today's prices to even pay the next month's wages.
For reference, the current per capita income per month in the U.S. is close to US$2000, which at current prices ($1600/ozt) is about 1.25 ozt per month and capita in the U.S.. With more tha

Several reasons. Most notable of which are the banking cartel, the MIC and their MSM mouthpieces.

What distinguishes Dr. Paul from 99% of the other politicians out there is that he wanted the government and the executive branch in particular to be LESS powerful. He recognizes and embraces the fact that human beings are flawed. You might think he has some crazy ideas, but his primary idea is that people should not be able to force their ideas on you at the point of a gun.

The only person you are going to agree with 100% of the time is yourself. What we should all agree on is that the power of government must be minimal in case some crazy guy or evil bastard gets elected.

Instead, we have had a steady stream of people who have accumulated more and more power, thus creating the potential for catastrophic abuse. e.g. arbitrary detention and assassination of U.S. citizens.

Ron Paul: How do you do, good lady? I am Ron, King of the Libertarians. Whose mansion is that?Woman: King of the who?Ron Paul: King of the Libertarians.Woman: Who are the Libertarians?Ron Paul: Well, we all are. We are all Libertarians. And I am your king.Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were a free republic.Dennis: You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating bureaucracy in which the oppressive regulations...Woman: Oh, there you go bringing regulation into it again.Dennis: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would...Ron Paul: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that mansion?Woman: No one lives there.Ron Paul: Then who is your landlord?Woman: We don't have a landlord.Dennis: I told you, we're an anarcho-capitalist agricultural corporation. There's a CEO who is nominally in charge...Ron Paul: Yes...Dennis:...but all the decisions of that CEO have to be ratified at a special bi-annual shareholders meeting...Ron Paul: Yes I see...Dennis:...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...Ron Paul: Be quiet!Dennis:...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...Ron Paul: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

The irony is thick in Ron Paul going to the UN for anything. Personally I feel he should probably get the domain but everything in it is the property of those who Built It, so he should get a domain with no mailing list and no content.

Let's put politics aside for a bit. Why should _THIS_ particular Ron Paul be allowed to "claim" ronpaul.com over some other person named Ron Paul. That combination of first and last name is not unique (http://howmanyofme.com/people/Ron_Paul/). Why should one person have a stronger claim to a domain name simply because they are more recognized by the public? I could understand the fight for MyBusinessName.com if your business is named MyBusinessName and said name is not some generic word/phrase. But whether it's Ron Paul or Michael Jordan or Joe Schmoe, I just don't see how it would be fair to all the other Ron Paul, Michael Jordan, or Joe Shmoe people.

A Libertarian refusing to pay the price borne by the market and instead appealing to regulators, no less than the villainous UNITED NATIONS, for an intervention? How can he not see that this lays waste to his entire political philosophy?

"Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice."(emphasis mine).

They are actually quite honest: they invested in him(after all, altruism would have been unethical), and now they want their ROI. This isn't a 'friendship' thing, this is a 'VCs fighting with their start-up's CEO over stock options' thing.

He needs to control his brand, and to own it outright. Thus, he benefits not only from having ownership, but having his legal right made clear.

Of course he benefits from having ownership...but that doesn't necessarily give him the right to take it away from the current owners. They bought the domain name, they built the site, they generated the traffic, and now he wants it arbitrarily transferred to him? That doesn't seem right.

The possible irony has nothing to do with the free markets. It has to do with his view of the UN.

For example

Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement;

So the UN is trying to destroy the US. This is not alarmist, simple the facts

we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance

If we follow the UN, we are not being faithful to the constitution of the US

As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens

Even if the UN says the domain is his, the UN has no legal authority to make it his, at least in the US.

Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

So by going to the UN, he might as well be asking Al Qaeda for help. He is hob nobbing with terrorist who are against America.

Ron Paul is the worst kind of Texas Politicians. He will do whatever his friends want, no matter what it does to the budget. His friends wanted a million dollar bus stop so he gave it to them. His friends wanted a million dollar game room so their kids could play video games instead of train for the military like they promised, so he gave it them. His fishing buddies wanted the government to pay to advertise their seafood products, so, you guessed it, he passed a billed transferring tax money directly into their pockets. And of course when the nuclear energy lobby come a courtin', he is there to give them as much as they want, even though Texas ratepayers end up paying for everything all over again.

As far as the free market, instead of letting firms decide what infrastructure is best for them, he mandates from washington what they need. He spent 2.5 redeveloping one the small towns in his district, instead of letting the free market decide if it was vialble. He spent 8 million redeveloping fishing pier instead of letting private firms take the risk and reap the reward. He spent 18 million on commercial waterways, instead of letting the private sector decide and pay for what it needed. And of course I believe an empty terminal for cruise lines is in his district.

The reality is that if he were not such a crackpot none of this would matter. Just like everyone else he greedy and does not want to pay a reasonable price for property he considers to be already his. But he is a person who has used extreme language to win election and raise funds, over $40 million in 2012. That he would now validate the authority of UN is quite troubling.